Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)
One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated. The following are ten of the most groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable.
10. The Discovery of Vulcan
Vulcan was a planet that nineteenth century scientists believed to exist somewhere between Mercury and the Sun. The mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier first proposed its existence after he and many other scientists were unable to explain certain peculiarities about Mercury’s orbit. Scientists like Le Verrier argued that this had to be caused by some object, like a small planet or moon, acting as a gravitational force. La Verrier called his hypothetical planet Vulcan, after the Roman god of fire. Soon, amateur astronomers around Europe, eager to be a part of a scientific discovery, contacted Le Verrier and claimed to have witnessed the mysterious planet making its transit around the Sun. For years afterward, Vulcan sightings continued to pour in from around the globe, and when La Verrier died in 1877, he was still regarded as having discovered a new planet in the solar system.
How it was Proven Wrong:
Without La Verrier acting as a cheerleader for Vulcan’s existence, it suddenly began to be doubted by many notable astronomers. The search was effectively abandoned in 1915, after Einstein’s theory of general relativity helped to explain once and for all why Mercury orbited the Sun in such a strange fashion. But amateur stargazers continued the search, and as recently as 1970 there have been people who have claimed to see a strange object orbiting the sun beyond Mercury. Amusingly, the entire would-be discovery’s greatest legacy today is that it inspired the name of the home planet of the character Spock from Star Trek.
9. Spontaneous Generation
Although it might seem a bit ludicrous today, for thousands of years it was believed that life regularly arose from the elements without first being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction. The main purveyor of the theory was Aristotle, who based his studies on the ideas of thinkers like Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras, all of whom stressed the ways in which life could spontaneously come into being from inanimate matter like slime, mud, and earth when exposed to sunlight. Aristotle based his own ideas on the observation of the ways maggots would seemingly generate out of dead animal carcass, or barnacles would form on the hull of a boat. This theory that life could literally spring from nothing managed to persist for hundreds of years after Aristotle, and was even being proposed by some scientists as recently as the 1700s.
How it was Proven Wrong:
It was only with the adoption of the scientific method that many of the classical theories like spontaneous generation began to be tested. Once they were, they quickly crumbled. For example, famed scientist Louis Pasteur showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope helped to show that these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms.
8. The Expanding Earth
Our modern understanding of the interior and behaviors of the Earth is strongly based around plate tectonics and the concept of subduction. But before this idea was widely accepted in the late 20th century, a good number of scientists subscribed to the much more fantastical theory that the Earth was forever increasing in volume. The expanding Earth hypothesis stated that phenomena like underwater mountain ranges and continental drift could be explained by the fact that the planet was gradually growing larger. As the globe’s size grew, proponents argued, the distances between continents would increase, as would the Earth’s crust, which would have explained the creation of new mountains. The theory has a long and storied past, beginning with Darwin, who briefly tinkered with it before casting it aside, and Nikola Tesla, who compared the process to that of the expansion of a dying star.
How it was Proven Wrong:
The expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly, but it has been widely replaced with the much more sophisticated theory of plate tectonics. While the expanding Earth theory holds that all land masses were once connected, and that oceans and mountains were only created as a result of the planet’s growing volume, plate tectonics explains the same phenomena by way of plates in the lithosphere that move and converge beneath the Earth’s surface.
7. Phlogiston Theory
First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and which makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.”
How it was Proven Wrong:
The more experiments that were performed using the phlogiston model, the more dubious it became as a theory. One of the most significant was that when certain metals were burned, they actually gained weight instead of losing it, as they should have if phlogiston were being released. The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation.
6. The Martian Canals
The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that 19th century scientist mistakenly believed to exist on the red planet. The canals were first “discovered” in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. After other stargazers corroborated his claim, the canals became something of a phenomenon. Scientists drew detailed maps tracing their paths, and soon wild speculation began on their possible origins and use. Perhaps the most absurd theory came from Percival Lowell, a mathematician and astronomer who jumped to the bizarre conclusion that the canals were a sophisticated irrigation system developed by an unknown intelligent species. Lowell’s hypothesis was widely discredited by other scientists, but it was also popularly accepted, and the idea managed to survive in some circles well into the 20th century.
How it was Proven Wrong:
Quite unspectacularly, the Martian canals were only proven to be a myth with the advent of greater telescopes and imaging technology. It turned out that what looked like canals was in fact an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blown across the Martian surface by heavy winds. Several scientists had proposed a similar theory in the early 1900s, but it was only proven correct in the 1960s when the first unmanned spacecraft made flybys over Mars and took pictures of its surface.
5. Luminiferous Aether
The aether, also known as the ether, was a mysterious substance that was long believed to be the means through which light was transmitted through the universe. Philosophers as far back as the Greeks had believed that light required a delivery system, a means through which it became visible, and this idea managed to persist all the way through to the nineteenth century. If correct, the theory would have redefined our entire understanding of physics. Most notably, if the aether were a physical substance that could exist even in a vacuum, then even deep space could be more easily measured and quantified. Experiments often contradicted the theory of the aether, but by the 1700s it had become so widespread that its existence was assumed to be a given. Later, when the idea was abandoned, physicist Albert Michelson referred to luminiferous aether as “one of the grandest generalizations in modern science.”
How it was Proven Wrong:
In traditional scientific fashion, the notion of a luminiferous aether was only gradually phased out as more sophisticated theories came into play. Experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light had long rendered traditional models of the aether outdated, but it was only when Einstein’s special theory of relativity came along and completely reconfigured physics that the idea lost the last of its major adherents. The theory still exists in various forms, though, and many have argued that modern scientists simply use terms like “fields” and “fabric” in place of the more taboo term “aether.”
4. The Blank Slate Theory
One of the oldest and most controversial theories in psychology and philosophy is the theory of the blank slate, or tabula rasa, which argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities. Proponents of the theory, which began with the work of Aristotle and was expressed by everyone from St. Thomas Aquinas to the empiricist philosopher John Locke, insisted that all mental content was the result of experience and education. For these thinkers, nothing was instinct or the result of nature. The idea found its most famous expression in psychology in the ideas of Sigmund Freud, whose theories of the unconscious stressed that the elemental aspects of an individual’s personality were constructed by their earliest childhood experiences.
How it was Proven Wrong:
While there’s little doubt that a person’s experiences and learned behaviors have a huge impact on their disposition, it is also now widely accepted that genes and other family traits inherited from birth, along with certain innate instincts, also play a crucial role. This was only proven after years of study that covered the ways in which similar gestures like smiling and certain features of language could be found throughout the world in radically different cultures. Meanwhile, studies of adopted children and twins raised in separate families have come to similar conclusions about the ways certain traits can exist from birth.
3. Phrenology
Although it is now regarded as nothing more than a pseudoscience, in its day phrenology was one of the most popular and well-studied branches of neuroscience. In short, proponents of phrenology believed that individual character traits, whether intelligence, aggression, or an ear for music, could all be localized to very specific parts of the brain. According to phrenologists, the larger each one of these parts of a person’s brain was, the more likely they were to behave in a certain way. With this in mind, practitioners would often study the size and shape of subjects’ heads in order to determine what kind of personality they might have. Detailed maps of the supposed 27 different areas of the brain were created, and a person who had a particularly large bump on their skull in the area for, say, the sense of colors, would be assumed to have a proclivity for painting.
How it was Proven Wrong:
Even during the heyday of its popularity in the 1800s, phrenology was often derided by mainstream scientists as a form of quackery. But their protests were largely ignored until the 1900s, when modern scientific advances helped to show that personality traits could not be traced to specific portions of the brain, at least in not as precise a way as the proponents of phrenology often claimed. Phrenology still exists today as a fringe science, but its use in the 20th century has become somewhat infamous: it has often been employed as a tool to promote racism, most famously by the Nazis, as well by Belgian colonialists in Rwanda.
2. Einstein’s Static Universe
Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.
How it was Proven Wrong:
The theory of a static universe was problematic from the start. First of all, a finite universe could theoretically become so dense that it would collapse into a giant black hole, a problem Einstein compensated for with his principle of the “cosmological constant.” Still, the final nail in the coffin for the idea was Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift—the way the color of heavenly bodies change as they move away from us—and distance, which showed that the universe was indeed expanding. Einstein would subsequently abandon his model, and would later refer to it as the “biggest blunder” of his career. Still, like all cosmological ideas, the expanding universe is just a theory, and a small group of scientists today still subscribe to the old static model.
1. Fleischmann and Pons’s Cold Fusion
While the conditions required to create nuclear energy usually require extreme temperatures—think of the processes that power the sun—the theory of cold fusion states that such a reaction is possible at room temperature. It’s a deceivingly simple concept, but the implications are spectacular: if a nuclear reaction could occur at room temperature, then an abundance of energy could be created without the dangerous waste that results from nuclear power plants. This groundbreaking theory briefly seemed to have become a reality in 1989, when the electro-chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published experimental results suggesting that they had achieved cold fusion—and the precious “excess energy” it was hoped to produce—in an experiment where an electric current was run through seawater and a metal called Palladium. The response to Pons and Fleischmann’s claims by the media and the scientific community was overwhelming. The experiments were hailed as a turning point in science, and it was briefly believed that with cold fusion energy would be cheap, clean, and abundant.
How it was Proven Wrong:
The fervor over cold fusion died down as soon as other scientists tried to replicate the experiment. Most failed to get any kind of similar results, and after their paper was closely studied, Fleischmann and Pons were accused not only of sloppy, unethical science, but were even said to have stretched the truth of their results. For years after, the idea of cold fusion became synonymous with fringe science. Still, despite the stigma attached to it, many have argued that there was never anything necessarily wrong about cold fusion as a theory. In recent years, scientists have once again started to experiment with new ways of achieving a so-called “tabletop nuclear reaction,” with some even claiming to have achieved surprising success.
Great list! I learned a lot from it.
How about Theory of Evolution? States that all Scientists who believes in this theory evolved from monkeys.
You operate under a common fallacy from most of the creationist pinheads: we did not “evolve from monkeys” or any ape as you know today. What Darwin said is the modern day primates evolved from a common ancestor, which would not be a “monkey” in the modern conception of the term.
Besides, it’s been shown that gorillas share 98.6% of the same DNA as humans. I’m prouder to be related to them than some “humans”.
Yet another ignorant person talking about something they know nothing about. I suppose the theory of an all-powerful god creating the universe and that the earth is 10,000 years old is a more plausible theory, one which offers no explanation what-so-ever.
I’d rather be proud that my ancestors are “human being-ignorant” rather than evolved from “monkeys”.
Those who believes that they came from Monkeys, please put your believes to yourself. Don’t include us in your Evolution Dreams…
If you believe that your great-great ancestors can be found in the zoo then I’m happy for you.
If you actually took the time to read Darwin’s theory of evolution you would know he never claimed we came from monkeys. What he said was that we shared a common ancestor. There is a lot of proof of evolution: you have to read about it to understand. Your argument is based on ignorance, which in its self is a failed “science”.
“…please put your believes to yourself.”
Don’t you mean, “Please keep your beliefs to yourself,” as a literate person would say? You’re closer to a monkey than you might think, Mr. “Proud to have ignorant human beings as ancestors.”
Please, don’t feed the troll.
It’s too late.
Equalizer, do believe that your ancestors evolved from the Neanderthals? They were “human being ignorant” also, made tools and communicated verbally. Do you know that you are much more closely related to chimpanzees (who also make tools and speak BTW) than to Neanderthals? I realize we are wasting our time trying to educate you, your parents did you a grave diservice by instilling such nitwittery into that highly evolved brain of yours.
YogiBarrister, I’m happy to know that your father is a Neanderthal and your Mother is a Chimpanzee.
I will keep that in my highly evolved brain.
Thank you for the info…
hi i live outside the usa. only in recent years i have hurd about ppl like mr equalize here. i can’t believe that people in this day and age can be so brain washed and uneducated. i feel sorry for you.
Andrei I feel sorry about you too. Better learn to spell English correctly before calling someone uneducated.
Tip: type first your comment on MSWord then cut paste here.
Equalizer: It’s ignorant theists like you that have contributed so much to the dumbing down of America. You are the one that should keep his nonsensical ideas to himself instead of trying to enact your personal stupidity into law.
Most of the problems of the world are, and always have been, caused by religion. Mankind will never truly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of truth, logic, and reason.
You talk about giving facts. I haven’t seen 1 fact from you. I have seen name calling, personal attacks and a total lack of respect for other posters. I’m glad you’re smarter than the rest of us. But there are ideas and greatness still out there. You claim truth, logic and reason but when it comes to the hoax of Global Warming you don’t apply the same rules. Where are your facts? Where is your truth? You asked me where was my fact about Mormons being more intellectual. This comes from a study at UCSB tracking intelligence and different religions and non religions. Just because you knew some Mormons in Arizona doesn’t impress me. Once again, I would like to see your facts and maybe a bit more respect for the rest of us.
Thos Weatherby PhD Astrophysics – Planetary Studies
UT
OK, let’s take on global warming first. Are you saying that the ice caps are not melting, the glaciers disappearing, and the sea levels rising? That the average world temperature isn’t rising? If you do, you are more foolish than you sound. These are measured, easily verifiable facts.
What is not clear, and most global warming realists agree, is the exact causes. Human intervention? Probably but also probably not the only cause. There are too many other likely factors and not all are easily measured. But global warming is a fact easily recognizable by people capable of intelligent thought processes.
You claim that Mormons are smarter than other people? Where is your evidence for that? As a group, they might place more value on some aspects of education than many, but that doesn’t mean they are smarter. But I suspect that is a distinction that escapes someone that would rather believe fantasies than facts.
What you think are insults are simply statements of observed behavior that verify the statements. If you resent the statements, modify your behavior.
You want respect? Then stop acting like a moron.
You made some statements that were not true. Let’s discuss Gullible Warming. You mentioned that the glaciers were melting and the Polar caps were melting. Sorry but you’re wrong. Try these sites. I can send you 50 more.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUx6pwXe
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-01-20-un-panel-himalayan-glaciers_N.htm
http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/environment/weather_and_climate/news.php?q=1255539831
http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191
Now as for the oceans rising. Not happening.
Dr. Morner is an expert on ocean levels. He has written over 25% of ALL scientific papers on the subject.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
Here’s some more facts.
From Climatic History of the Holocene, by James S. Abe has written that the ocean levels are now shrinking. Not rising.
Please stop with the personal attacks. You’re showing a great deal of immaturity and your bias and naivete on the subject.
Why did Mars warm up more than Earth? Why did Venus warm up more than Earth? Why is Pluto going through a warming period. It warmed up over 12 degrees C.
I still haven’t heard or seen any facts from you. How about this picture.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Construction_Crane_Buried_in_Ice.htm
Weatherby, you are either a liar, a fool, or else both. Just because there are other people that deny obvious facts, that doesn’t make them or you correct.
Perhaps you have not seen the photographs of the ice caps and glaciers disappearing? Perhaps you have not read of the pacific islands slowly being inundated by rising sea levels? More likely, you choose to ignore these facts because they don’t support your own ignorance.
I am finished with you.
May I say, ironically, “Amen!”?
May I say, ironically, “Amen!” ? (this is the right comment, please disregard my next [1st] reply.)
The FACTS are, there are thousands of pieces of evidence of evolution in museums, laboratories, and universities around the world. There is not one piece of evidence of creationism anywhere in the world.
Furthermore, evolution does NOT state that humans evolved from monkeys, but that both evolved from a common ancestor. Once again, the ignorance of the religious reich exposes itself.
“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt.” There is no longer any doubt about you, religion and “creation science”. All are foolish, ignorant, and should be eliminated from the earth.
Here’s the thing Equalizer. Even if the theory of evolution is disproved, someone like Jose, who studies the science of it and ignores the twatwafflery coming from the religious right, is going to end up a lot smarter than you. He will be more likely to be able to provide for his offspring, therefore his genes will be passed on to future generations. Maybe if you’re lucky, your children can work for Jose’s children, but only if you break the vicious cycle of ignorance and teach them how to think critically.
Actually because of my in-depth capacity for abstract reasoning and critical analysis evolved brain, Jose and his children works for me. I tell to my children that we’re far more superior than those monkeys.
Equalizer says:
March 15, 2010 at 11:30 am
Andrei I feel sorry about you too. Better learn to spell English correctly before calling someone uneducated.
Equalizer says:
March 15, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Actually because of my in-depth capacity for abstract reasoning and critical analysis evolved brain, Jose and his children works for me. I tell to my children that we’re far more superior than those monkeys.
Yes Mr. Pot, your children are far superior to those pitch black kettle monkeys.
It’s called the Flynn Effect.
i believe in evolution. but as a person who has seen the movie idiocracy will tell u, the smart have less kids then the dumb and ignorant, so as much as i hate to say it, were gonna be seeing a lot more equalizers around. anyways i believe in evolution my family does, and so do most of my friends and when i have kids so will they, but if some ppl wanna believe it doesnt exist, i say let them, as long as they dont bother me with their ignorance i wont bother them with intelligence
The more intelligent people have fewer (not less) children because they are more moral and socially responsible. They know that over population (especially with ignorant theists) is the largest problem facing humanity today. I’m also sure you meant “than” instead of “then”.
It’s also “we’re” as in “we are”. There is an apostrophe in “doesn’t, don’t”, and “won’t”. You might also consider reconstructing your text to include a few periods to reduce the run-on sentences. You could also try ending a sentence with a period when you do finally run out of things to say, too. Finally, “gonna” and “wanna” are not real words. Try spelling out “you” and “people” so you sound a little less illiterate.
Not to worry, you won’t bother anyone with your intelligence and education.
Have to disagree with your statement. Having children has nothing to do with being more morally and socially responsible. There is no over population. Every family on this planet could have a quarter acre of land and everyone would fit inside the state of Texas. During the Renaissance the family size was larger than that of today. When the American Founding Fathers wrote our constitution, the family size was large than today’s family. Mormons who have large families are more intelligent than the average family in the US.
And Porto Alegre, Sao Paulo, Rio, Belo Horizonte, and Fortaleza all have larger families than Harare in Zimbabwe. Are those citizens more morally and socially responsible than all of those cities in Brazil?
You are so ignorant it staggers the imagination. Yes, there is overpopulation. The 7+ billion people on the planet are destroying the earth with pollution, habitat destruction and the heat output of ever-increasing energy use.
You are wrong on so many level that it would take a book to elaborate them and explain the reasons,
Mormons are more intelligent? Since when and where is your proof? I lived in Arizona among them and they are just as stupid, uninformed and arrogant about it as you.
What a disgusting example of a human being you are. You are the poster chlld for stupidity.
“…are more intelligent than…”
IQ, which I assume you mean, is only one limited scope of intelligence, and anyways, intelligence doesn’t matter one pound of green flaming zebra **** if it is not used.
Equalizer, you’re not terribly perceptive are you? The point is, if you simply say God created everything and don’t explore things in greater depth, you won’t develop the capacity for abstract reasoning and critical analysis necessary to survive.
You are completely wrong about cold fusion. It was replicated thousands of times in hundreds of major labs, and these replications were published in hundreds of peer reviewed papers. In recent months, a major conference on cold fusion was sponsored by the Italian DoE, Physical Society and Chemical Society, the U.S. NRL published a major breakthrough, and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency recommended increased funding for this research.
For more on this subject, see:
http://lenr-canr.org
Great list!
Very Interest.
Oh and Mr “Equaliser” is clear proof that evolution occasionally backtracks <_<
Who’s “Equaliser” ???
TIP: Used MSWord and used spell check <_<
I’m English, we spell it with an “s”.
Check ms word, no red underline… unless you have a different version to me.
Evolution can never Back-trekk. it can only move forward in ways that seem to mimic earlier stages. Proof: whales, as far as we can tell, are not fish. They are whales.
lol, #9 (Spontaneous Generation) is still believed by Evolutionists today. They say that life originated from muddy water when lightening struck it. Imagine a complex amoeba with all its cell functions arising because lighting struck some mud lol!
No they don’t! Science is not sure how life was started, which is why they cannot recreate it. I am not sure where you read this, but a little fact checking would not hurt.
Actually, they have recreated it, simulating conditions that would most likely have existed 6 billion years ago, using commonly available proteins and an electric charge.
Evolution has also been proved, too, by flash-freezing every 100,000 generation of bacteria kept with 2 substances: one it could digest for food/reproduction, and another it could not. And around the time it reached it’s 400,000 generation, one sample had evolved to be able to digest both supplies.
Evolution
Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.
Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation
Romans 1:20 — For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable
I would say
Evolution: by the survivability, determined by success of reproduction, of a given trait or traits, the successive generations become more likely to reproduce, thereby creating a reproductive environment that will support those traits. The theory of evolution is not limited to biology (Memes as well as Genes as well as all kinds of other things), so please don’t limit it to that scope.
The cosmic irony is that disbelief in evolution is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Actually Einstein’s theory predicted that the universe was expanding, but because that had not yet been discovered, Einstein created his cosmological constant. If ignorance is bliss why are creationists so angry?
I’m going take a stab at your question “If ignorance is bliss why are creationists so angry?” I used to be a Christian I don’t claim to be one now but the knowledge of the teachings are still there. In church they teach God created the heavens and the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh. These are absolute, they don’t change not even to conform to a more scientific view. In fact, I read in a Christian science school book , that even someone like myself should be in the same category as an atheist. You see, I believe in creationism but I believe that one day can be a million to God. We don’t know what a day is for God. I mean for us a day is 24 hours but on a planet like Venus a day is 243 Earth days so who knows what a day would be for God. The “anger” can only be described as a brainwashing. During this time frame in which I attended church and was a Christian I kept journals of all my thoughts. I will not read these journals because of the amount of judgment I was placing on other people. The amount of hate and disgust that I felt toward those who were different than myself was all wrong. They teach you to be this way. The outrage they feel is because they are taught to have extreme faith in the entire Bible and any other ideas are wrong. When you have someone that is well beyond that and they question, “why?” they bump you to Sunday School teacher so they no longer need to answer your questions during Bible study because any other ideas are wrong and the Bible is absolute. Many of those who have the extreme belief don’t have museums to show them that man is actually a lot older than a couple of thousand years old. I grew up looking at “Lucy,” where I live now has art museums and nothing more (most of the art is from the area nothing cool like a Picasso or Renoir.) The anger is because many don’t read beyond the Bible.
Good compilation and explanation….
I prefer to believe that life was created when a giant tortoise farted six and a half years ago. It only feels longer because we were trapped in a magic hour-glass by an evil emperor who altered our memories. I don’t have any scientific evidence to back this up but because I believe it to be true I dont feel I need any. In fact, when people claim my beliefs are idiotic I just stand there with my fingers in my ears going la-la-la-la.
hmm sounds similiar to something ive heard preached
A theory is not a hypothesis. Stop being ignorant. When theory appears in this article, it should be replaced with hypothesis.
Why are we argueing about evolution? It has nothing to do with this list.
because its fun to argue
Let us not forget AGW which will be in the next version of this list.
You are referring to Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming, yes?
“Acquired Characteristics” should be on this list.
Darwin quite wrongly believed that if you cut off the tails of mice for a hundred years that mice would eventually be born without tails.
With the discovery of genetics we now know this to be completely false.
Interestingly it was evolutionists that suppressed the study of genetics for over 20 years because it conflicted with their belief in evolution.
It was only after some one came up with the theory that evolution could happen through mutations that the study of genetics was able to proceed.
My point being that you should not delude yourself that the evolutionists are the pure scientists without any agenda and only wanting to discovery the truth.
Many are just as hard-core closed-minded fundamentalist as any as any religious fundamentalist.
Amen to that.
That was Lamarck not Darwin… which kind of disproves your whole subsequent “argument”.
Thank GOD (or not, as your preference may be)! somebody finally gets it.
Comment to the last paragraph: it’s not “nuclear reaction” it’s “nuclear fission”. Wiki the difference.
The currently held views in physics about “the big bang and the origin of the universe” is a huge wad of Biblical gooblygook. Time, Space, Matter, and Energy/Sentience are still very poorly understood and Creationist explanations are highly unlikely to be valid answers. The Big Bang still tries to make something out of nothing… Time without beginning is much more likely…
All you creationists/evolutionists need to chill!
…may you all be touched by His Noodly Appendage…
Peace & Pasta to all.
Damn straight, praise Bob and pass the slack!
All hail the mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster. And bring back the pirates, it all went wrong when they went away
- A duly devoted Pastafarian
Cold fusion breakthrough about a year ago.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/us-navy-scientists-claim-cold-fusion-breakthrough-19762.html
Your picture for philosopher John Locke is of John Locke from the show Lost. Figure out your sources rather than doing a quick google copy/paste.
Evolution
Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.
Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation
Romans 1:20 — For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable
Aristotle had a lot of inane ideas. Aristotelian logic for a start.
Perhaps you would like to educate us on exactly how it was inane? Or do you simply make inane accusations without proof?
they are all pants theorys
Not to sure about the expanding Earth. In the last few years there has been mounting evidence that may support this theory. Actually, one can venture on to YouTube and watch the latest ideas on this topic. I don’t think this one has been settled yet.
Exactly what evidence? That there are kooks on Youtube? Most rational people already knew that. Maybe you’re another one that likes to throw out silly ideas hoping that people will accept them with no verifiable proof. Come on, convince me.
The first bit of evidence is that even through a static Earth, the positioning of the major plates don’t exactly match up. Why does the mid Atlantic Ridge spread apart in many places. Plate tectonics don’t explain this movement. But a Earth that is growing larger just might. Also, the mineral dispersion is better explained by a growing planet rather than our planet being the same size for all these years.
The pressures of the core would model our sun. You might want to read two books from Robert Felix. Not by Fire but by Ice, and Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps. Might just change your thoughts of how evolution works too.
And please spare me the “rational People” talk. True rational people will listen to new ideas and expand them from there. If it’s only plate tectonics then explain to me the physics behind it. You can’t. Looks like we may all be in the same boat.
You think that is evidence? If the earth is expanding, why does the distances between place remain the same? Why does the measured circumference of the planet not change? Why does the gravitational force not change.
The distances do not remain the same. The circumference is not static. It’s actually increased over the last 40 years. And the gravitational force has changed. Why is the moon getting further away from Earth every day.
Weatherby, you make totally ridiculous statements without a shred of proof. Show us proof that the circumference of the earth has expanded. Yes, the moon is receding very slightly at the rate of a few millimeters a year. But that is explained by orbital mechanics. How would the Earth expanding cause that? If anything, it would become closer as the Earth expands.
But when you are espousing and nonsensical idea, facts just get in the way, don’t they?
I will not spare you the rational people talk. I’ll keep it up until you either go away from embarrassment or until you start to become rational yourself.
I’m still waiting for your proof. You are quick to criticize others for their lack of proof but you offer none of your own. Your shallow. See if you can follow this and give me the facts to disprove it.
Subduction’s fatal flaw is easily demonstrated. Cup both hands, thumbs together, to represent Wegener’s single Pangaean landmass covering one hemisphere of an imaginary fixed-diameter Earth, with Panthalassa (the eo-Pacific Ocean) occupying the rest of the planet.
Then, to portray creation of the Atlantic Ocean, slowly move the hands apart and slide them around this imaginary globe (the left hand representing North and South America; the right hand representing Eurasia/Africa and Australia, with the Atlantic Ocean opening up between them). Now, observe what happens to the Pacific basin on the opposite side of the globe as the Atlantic basin keeps widening in conformity with plate tectonics dogma.
Note that, as the continents are pushed around the planet under pressure of an ever-widening Atlantic Ocean, a fixed, unchanging diameter would result in subduction eventually swallowing the entire Pacific Ocean basin—IN SPITE OF continuous propagation of new ocean seafloor at the rate of ~80-160 mm/yr (~3-1/4 to ~6-1/2 in/yr) along the hyperactive East Pacific Rise (EPR) west of South America (the most active volcanic area on the planet) right in the middle of the supposed subduction area. (This is also a volatile heat source directly beneath the area where El Niños are spawned by heated Pacific waters.)
If carried to its ultimate conclusion, subduction would cause North and South America to be moved half way around the planet from the western edge of Pangaea to the eastern edge of Pangaea, ending up against Asia and Australia after having eliminated the entire Pacific Ocean! This would occur in spite of the massive growth of new seafloor in the Pacific along the East Pacific Rise, which is today expanding the width of the Pacific Ocean basin.
The good news is that this simple demonstration provides a method to determine which of the two processes, subduction or expansion, is correct simply by measuring any change in width of the Pacific Ocean basin. In order to prove subduction, the Pacific basin must rapidly decrease in size in order to accommodate the continuous growth occurring in the other oceans of the world. However, any increase in size would confirm that the Earth is increasing in diameter, surface area, and circumference.
And the moon recedes about 3.8cm per year not a “few millimeters” as you stated.
I know you won’t “spare me” the rational talk. You don’t have any rational facts. Please go out and get an education. Oh and according to NASA’s tracking, the earthquake that hit off the coast of Sumatra in 2004 increased Earths diameter by 3.2mm.
actually the one that I am suprised is missing is the big bang theory. The Big bang theory states that at one time all the energy in the universe was at one time concentrated into one mass which then exploded outward forming over time planets and stars and galaxies. the only problem with that is that its a scientific fact that matter cannot pop into existance ( you cant take nothing and get something from it) so were did all the matter come from. I would also like to point out that if the matter had “always been there” than all its energy would have been used up literately an eternity ago.
First it is NOT a scientific fact about matter popping into existence. it’s the other way around. The belief is matter CAN just pop into existence. The big bank started with a singularity. A singularity contains infinite mass. So it already had the mass when it ‘exploded’. By definition, are universe is inside a black hole. You may want to investigate the latest in parallel universes. And you can not use up energy. You can convert it, into other energy or mass. Maybe this is how mass can suddenly appear.
It seems that most of you have forgotten what it’s like to be human. Here’s a suggestion: perhaps it is not the truths of things that matter as much as what our collective beliefs tell us about our own limited human sensibilities. After all, it is environmental functionality–however we manage it–that is the overarching concern here. Belief may be as close as most, or even all, of us will ever know (whatever the hell “knowledge” means). Here’s what I mean: Darwinian Evolution, Creationism, cutting-edge atomic theory (most, but by no means all, of which resembles retrograde motion, and we all know how that turned out…), et alii ad nauseam, are all incorrect as facts, but they are not necessarily False; they are merely the best–albeit flawed–tools of understanding our existence we currently have to work with, and so work with them we do. With imperfect tools come imperfect results, so continually we improve our tools of comprehension in order to get less and less imperfect results. At the end of the day, no matter how much we learn, we are still slave to what we can only know by suggestion. As for my qualifications, I have none; I’m (obviously) a Humanist. I agree; don’t feed the Troll, conquer it by letting it conquer you. My advice: try psychedelics.
I hope for most of you that that last comment has biased you all against all arguments I have made here. After all, it would only be logical for one snide, off-hand remark (or the occasional grammatical screw-up) to utterly dissuade most readers from presented arguments. After all, iIt is the loudest arguments that win the day anyways, right? I know it’s absurd, crazy, and probably irrelevant, but the posts and the people who write them might not be one-in-the-same; an argumenti argumentandi?